To be irritated by this £100k a year whiner

[Viviennemary]

On Question Time tonight they were talking about subsidised childcare and the new benefits for younger children. Then a woman came on with a boo hoo sad face and said she wouldn't be getting it. So I think Fiona Bruce said because your income is £100k a year plus Then she said that it wasnt fair as there was only one wage. And their household only had one earner.

Well tough. Folk on just over £12k a year are paying tax and this cheeky woman thinks her child care should be subsidised. It made me mad.

Savings, what is that going to yield with interest rates being as low as they are. You want to make any money you need assets, wealth begets wealth and many of us don't have that!

YABU It is unfair. It should be based on household income.

If you are a single parent earning 100k, then you don't have a partner to do the childcare for you.

Should we remove tax free childcare and free hours for everyone then?

You do realise this would impact all families who qualify for tax free childcare and funded 30 hrs. So basically everyone earning under £100k who has all adults in the household working?

This would disproportionately impact low earning families.

So noone should have children unless they can either afford to have a parent stay home, have family who can support or can afford to pay anywhere between £60-100 per day in childcare.

I wonder how that would work out. Given it's pretty much a must to afford life these days to have both parents working.

I haven’t RTFT, so it’s likely someone has already pointed this out, but in a two full time earner household, you definitely do need childcare if you have kids. In a two parent house where just one is earning and the other is a stay at home parent, I think it makes sense that the household wouldn’t get the same tax breaks for childcare because one parent is already at home. In my opinion, if there is an injustice in this system, it is for single parent homes where every potential earner in the household is already out in the workforce, but they receive thousands less in childcare assistance because they’re doing it alone.

Yes, but the people on 100k are not the problem here. It’s the people sitting on millions & land and corporations who can take advantage of loopholes and subsidies that are the problem.

Anyway - for the same reason I'd encourage any mum to not give her job up and be a SAHM - childcare is short-term pain for long-term gain. Sure it's annoying to spend £4k a month or whatever on childcare. But it's not forever. If you're not willing to cut back a little when you have kids (and yes now I am talking about those earning the megabucks) then maybe you should reconsider becoming a parent. Lower earners might need the financial help to be able to afford to heat their homes; higher earners want it so they can continue to finance a Lexus not a Ford or go to Capri and not Bognor.

(I recognise there may be outliers to this - but I would also argue if you are on £100k a year and struggling then maybe you should cut your cloth a bit better)

I'm sorry, what? You're being incredibly unreasonable and completely obtuse.

Just because someone on £12k is paying tax, that means someone on an adjusted net of £100k shouldn't get the new nursery provision? Do you not realise that those earning over £100k are subsidising those on lower wages? Do you also not realise the tax trap those on £100k+ face?

£100k is nothing in London. We are a two income household, one earns over £150k and one does not earn anywhere near £100k. We have a mortgage, service charge, ground rent, essential expenses (groceries etc.) and then a £2,000 nursery bill every month. It is not affordable yet, there are people on lower salaries getting subsidised nursery care and other expenses paid for by the state.

It is so bad that it makes no financial sense for me to work full-time, my salary literally pays for the nursery plus expenses for our child. That's it. If I were a single parent, I could work full-time (in my post with my salary) and have money left over to live my life while affording similar opportunities for my child.

It is outrageous that families like mine are consistently screwed over by successive governments because people think £100k is a lot of money. It no longer is, not in this economy, and certainly not with what we get in return for our tax money.

The schemes should be for all, not the select few based on an arbitrary salary cap.

True - I was in this position and could afford 2 dc in nursery so got pregnant with dd2 (pregnancy 2 was twins). I did take the hit and the reality is, if you’re working at far higher paid level, getting back into the workforce is much much easier and you’ll most likely be pretty clever. I worked freelance in an advisory role on minimal hours to keep my hand in. You can’t do that if you’re minimum wage in a supermarket etc. is about the bigger picture.

Yep. A hidden tax hike that's moved thousands into higher tax bands and wiped out as many pay increases over the same period. Smoke and mirrors tax policies.

Sorry is this Tory HQ, hilarious, the Lexus, you really haven't a clue!

This doesn’t answer the question @CountAlmaviva was asking it only states and is an article about inequality ( and we know there are rich and poor ) but it doesn’t say how the rich are actually subsidised.

Im assuming the Guardian have got their facts from somewhere as they have very specific figures. It just a shame they don’t mention what subsidies and how much they are talking about.

I do know large wind farms and such are subsidised but I’m not convinced that’s the sort of rich person subsidy that anyone would be concerned about. Not least because it’s a business that offers employment.

@Babyroobs I didn’t factor that in - mine didn’t do Uni - but that must be hard, too.

Have you seen the cost of minimum wage?

Even a nursery that is full and charging £100 a day will only make a tiny profit.

Disingenuous - are you very rich by any chance?

CountAlmaviva is in totally disbelief are they, expect a dissertation reply with references academic papers! Why don't they Google it, better still look around you, of course the inequality hikes are absolutely nothing to do with the Wealthy getting wealthier, there's no connection at all🙄

Ah, a sensible view!

I've concluded that many people just don't understand how the system works (or fails to work). And they're not interested in engaging sufficiently to work it out either.

Regardless of what you think of high earners/ income inequality/ universal childcare or benefits etc., it is impossible imo for anyone with half a brain cell who actually engages it to support the present system. It is so fundamentally flawed, bonkers, illogical, broken etc.

There is no high earner vs lower earner here. The system is just broken. At the moment, parents earning above £100k but below around £150k are incentivised to refuse promotions, refuse pay rises, refuse bonuses, cut their working hours, make extra pension payments.

That means less total tax for public services and redistribution to lower earners. And not just while the £100k earner's children are little - it has a knock-on impact for years afterwards.

We all lose.

Exactly the same here.
My second pregnancy was twins and paying for two tiny ones at the same time is very expensive, as you know.
We couldn’t afford three childcare fees though and whilst I jumped back into the workforce after thefirst went to school I lost out on responsibility, wages and pension payments.

I was talking about , as the PP, the short term hit. We couldn’t afford three years of not being able to pay the bills so I had to stop working.

Now, however the opportunity with childcare costs met both can work. Better for the economy all round

Agree @Barquentine

And then you have parents who simply don’t pay for extras. And once they are in receipt of funding, it’s impossible to get rid of them.

People do not prioritise their childcare bills, regardless of what you read on Mumsnet.

Well, £100,000 salary doesn't go as far as it sounds on paper. A salary like that comes from years of hard work and qualifications, often studied for in their own time and their own expense. They aren't generally just dished out to a lucky few. The income is brutally taxed and NI contribution reduce this salary further. Passing this 100k threshold sees the personal allowance eroded and benefit entitlement lost. A couple each earning £99k is in a better position entitlement-wise than a single person on £100k, which is an odd quirk.

As others have pointed out, once childcare costs, housing etc. are taken into account, 5k per month income isn't the rolling in it you might think it is on paper, especially if there is more than 1 child in nursery.

When it comes to dishing out my sympathies, if they were finite I'd save them for people trapped in poverty and/or suffering ill health, however their plight doesn't reduce the unfair burden in terms of tax and lost privileges that apply to people like this person on QT.

Childcare cliff edges, the ridiculous effective tax burden that has approached us by stealth by the freezing of thresholds is a reality that contradict the "same old tories, tax breaks for the rich" narrative, and is leaving many high achievers and hard workers wondering whether it was worth it.

If I was very rich I’d know about and be applying for the subsidies mentioned by PP. I don’t know and neither it seems does Count

@CountAlmaviva was asking a question, seems fare enough, but it wasn’t answered.

I assumed tbh it’s not so much subsidies as just not being taxed enough ? or having the opportunity , with v good accountants, to avoid huge tax payouts. But that’s not subsidies.

Is that it you 'agree'. So you are expecting dissertation level responses to a question that is probably rhetorical on your part.

@User8646382

People do not prioritise their childcare bills
A sweeping generalisation. I did. Always did. Sure lots of people paying childcare prioritise those in their monthly expenditure...............

I don't have sympathy for people earning 100k to not get free childcare. Surely the lower earning parent could reduce their hours and take on more of the childcare to reduce costs? People like me can only dream of earning 100k. I don't think I'd struggle to afford childcare earning that much (we manage now just about and I earn a lot less than that!)